doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Pattern theory

Extremely high speed photography showing photos of the shot charge at the muzzle might help explain this, but what happens before the ejecta leaves the barrel is only supposition. I kinda agree with wonko (for a change) on this.

He called a bs flag, fine, but only Stan provided sources to investigate.

It is a proven fact as far as I'm concerned, that a single lead bullets' nose will deform back towards the base on firing, and the nose will show deformation after it clears the muzzle even though it didn't touch some wad material, other shot or the barrel.

Wonko joked about Newton and science. If a hundred, or pick a number, shotcup pellets made the ride down a barrel unmolested. Why wouldn't the leading surface of a perfect sphere deform back to some degree of out of round. Then again, there's decent evidence that the individual pellets do get affected, by unevenly applied physics, on their ride down a bore.

If someone were willing to accept the high speed photo evidence of shot after it left the muzzle, and not willing to accept any setback concept, then it must be the choke? Why would we get deformed flyers out of a cylinder bore? Wouldn't it be fairly easy to confirm how true the pellets were before loading the test shells, and couldn't we take a couple apart to make sure our loading technique didn't damage the shot?

We've now got theories that the bottom pellets get deformed, that the leading pellets get deformed and that the pellets in contact with the bore get deformed. It's a surprise that any round pellets remain. Just to add fuel to the fire, does it make any difference as to the size of the pellets?

Interesting images of deformed, and not so deformed shot here
http://shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=307860

Purposefully non-round shot is the 'newest thing'
Hevi-shot
http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/262799-non-toxic-shot/
Winchester HexShot
http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2011/9/9/winchester-blind-side/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/02/06/winchesters-new-blind-side-shotshells/

Re: shot stringing

Ed Lowry, ballistician and the director of research at Olin-Winchester, spark shadowgraphs in "The Effect of a Shotstring" American Rifleman, November 1979

Yes, very much so.

Tom Roster:

It is a fact that the larger the lead pellet being employed, the lower the antimonial content needs to be for that pellet to have the same degree of resistance to deformation as a lead pellet of a smaller diameter. Thus it is a common practice among American shotshell manufacturers to generally adhere to the following table for antimonial content in lead shot they call �hard�:

Shot Size

Antimonial Level

Buckshot

� to 1%

No. BB to 2

1 to 2�%

No. 4 to 6

3 to 4%

No. 7 to 8

5 to 6%

No. 8� to 9 for
skeet shooting



3%





Therefore, for example, it takes about a 6% antimonial level to make a size No. 8 lead pellet as resistant to deformation as larger buckshot-sized lead pellets containing only �% antimony. Regarding the above table, just where the shot size break occurs and just what the actual amount of antimony added per pellet size and load type may be, can vary from U.S. manufacturer to manufacturer.

SRH

I forget the absolute number off hand but lead deforms (Upsets) at a bit over 1400 psi times the Brinell Hardness number. The "Blow" of the burning powder hits the load from the back, therefore that's where the worst upsetting occurs. To upset the front after it exits the muzzle it has to have enough air resistance to exceed the deformation Threshold. A too Hard cast bullet fired from will lead the breech of the barrel in the cone because it Does Not upset & the gas cuts by it causing the leading. In the shotgun of course the wad is supposed to be sealing the gas from eroding the shot.
Maybe I've not studied all the "Books" some have but a lot years of fooling with a lot of things of a mechanical nature I have gained a bit more common Sense than a few here seem to have. Lay a short fat lead rod down on its side & another long a lick on one end slender one of the same weight. Hit them both a lick on one end with a hammer which covers their entire face & see which one deforms the most & where it occurs.
By the same token a shot load with a long shot column has more resistance per square inch to being moved than does a shorter column.

Hey guys: Let's not forget appropriate political correctness. Those pellets aren't deformed. They're just differently formed.

That is good

As noted in earlier posts the deformation at the base of the ahot load demonstrably occurs.

The point Wonko makes, or so I understand, is even if it deformation does occur, it makes no difference is wrong, just as the point that shot stringing makes no difference.

Deformation leads to longer shot strings and longer shot strings mean less density and in addition less uniformity of dispersion. I realize that the shot string (cloud) is moving fast, but it is not that fast that the targets speed is negated completely. The pictures in Brister's book clearly show this.

How can those pictures of shot strings on moving targets be disregarded?

And let's not forget a theory is a supposition. All of which provide excuses for my misses. Long live pattern theory.

Long live the one or two flyers for me, probably accounts for more feel goods than the best patterns could.